Not sure if they are indeed the hardest, but here is my attempt to answer them... not just 3.they will probably give me an F... but hell...

1. Gender is a social construct, based on the biological sexe.2. yes, it has a legitimate role, though i question if it is a productive one.3. No.4. any action that is different of what is intended, is unintentional, be it positive or negative.5. what we can learn is how the mind works without those disorder, but what does qualify as a disorder?6. yes, but they are not always the best reasons.7. i think it a bullshit method used by people who don't have (enough) evidence for their own position.8. seriously, how can you not know how apologies work? have you been living in a cave sheltered from society?9. it looks pretty naturalised to me, if it needs to go even further... i have no answer for that, yet.10. yes. if you want examples, just watch some "debates" on youtube.

7. As no definition of "higher order" has been provided, this is a difficult question to answer;

8. Not sure if this question is looking for a technical - ie, behavioural - analysis or not. As we're social animals, being able to maintain social networks requires us to "repair" damaged social relationships - "apologies" is the term for part of this process;

9. Naturalism is itself a epistemology that "has been" (is!) naturalised. Perhaps a more pertinent question would be, "Is Naturalism a better epistemology than (non-naturalistic) others?";

10. Yes: the history of ideological - including religious - disagreements, and even wars, is ample evidence that this is the case!

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Dragan Glas wrote:1. Neither, as they are both biologically-based - ie, gender is a social-construct based on sex, it is not a purely "social construct"

It's interesting that people who were born with both male and female sexual organs and were "assigned" a sex end up being transgender. If gender was a purely social construct one would think that such people would conform to the gender they were assigned.

Dragan Glas wrote:1. Neither, as they are both biologically-based - ie, gender is a social-construct based on sex, it is not a purely "social construct"

It's interesting that people who were born with both male and female sexual organs and were "assigned" a sex end up being transgender. If gender was a purely social construct one would think that such people would conform to the gender they were assigned.

Indeed, as I pointed out in the feminism thread, although there are multiple sexes and sexual orientations, people perceive themselves as either male or female.

There's no such gender as androgynous or neuter (without gender).

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Laurens wrote:The Telegraph posted an article about the World's Hardest Test. Below is a sample of some of the questions:

Do you think you could answer some of them?

Does it actually earn the title of being the world's hardest test?

Some interesting questions there, some of which I clearly know nothing about, some of which I might be able to have an uneducated stab at...

I took a philosophy degree a few years back ... dossed quite a bit... didn't get a great pass...

In the first year though, I did score a little higher despite usual first year shenanigans. One test for which I hadn't sufficiently revised (among the many) reminds me of the one you've posted here. Despite knowing that I would be mainly winging it, I managed to scrape together some semi relevant thoughts for a couple of the questions that almost resembled a reasonable attempt at answers: scrawling down something about Aristotle, perhaps mentioning the Olympics, throwing in a couple of philosophical sounding words like epistemology whether I understood them or not, maybe a vague reference to the film 300... or something along those lines. However, I was one question short of a full picnic. For the third question I had literally nothing. I had a little bit of time, but less applicable information in my head than I had 'in date' food in my student kitchen...

I remember very clearly what I did. I wrote, "The answer is yes and no." I wrote no more than that, left the third essay blank because I simply had nothing and spent the remaining time procrastinating as I recall. I think I did a doodle on another sheet whilst internally kicking myself. A few days later - or whenever it was - I received a grade for that paper. I got something similar to a low or medium B as I recall. I passed the exam (and the first year), because they were sufficiently impressed with my other answers. Not only that, but I received credit for my minimalist and probably ridiculous answer to the third question. I found this all hilarious at the time and enjoyed telling that story - that all you need to do to pass a philosophy exam is to write, "The answer is yes and no."